A finished DBA-835 Topic 5 profit divergence dq post example, conceding that a bottler's switch to recycled plastic costs money and arguing the grounds on which it can still be defended. Searches like "dba 835 topic 5 assignment example", "dba835 topic 5 sample" and "dba-835 topic 5 example" land here.
What a finished DBA-835 Topic 5 profit divergence dq post looks like
The finished post opens by stating the divergence plainly: in the composite case, recycled resin costs the bottler more than virgin resin, retailers will not absorb the difference and shoppers who say they value recycled content rarely pay for it. The second paragraph gives Friedman's position its strongest form, that a manager's duty is to increase profits within the law, so spending shareholders' money on an unpriced benefit needs their consent. The third answers with two grounds that survive the concession: some states already set minimum recycled content for beverage bottles, which turns part of the cost into a compliance matter, and Hart and Zingales argue that firms should serve shareholders' welfare, which can include their preferences about pollution. The fourth names what is traded away. The reply questions a classmate's appeal to shared value.
How a DBA-835 Topic 5 example is structured
Four paragraphs precede the reply, and the concession arrives before the argument. In paragraph one, the cost gap, the retailers' refusal and the distance between what shoppers say and buy are laid out as features of the composite case. Paragraph two states Friedman's view in his own terms, stressing that it permits sustainable spending that serves the firm and objects only to spending that does not. The third paragraph separates the part of the switch compelled by state rules from the part that is voluntary, and argues the voluntary part on shareholder welfare, provided shareholders are asked. The fourth states the cost plainly: margin lost on every case sold, which the post will not relabel as a long-term investment without evidence. A closing reply to a classmate who cited Porter and Kramer's shared value draws on Crane and colleagues' critique that the idea tends to pass over real tensions.
The divergence stated in the opening line
The post concedes at the start that recycled resin costs more and that neither retailers nor shoppers will pay for it in the composite case.
Friedman given his strongest form
The argument that managers spend shareholders' money and need their consent for unpriced benefits is presented as its best advocates would make it, not as a caricature.
Compelled content separated from chosen content
State rules setting minimum recycled content turn part of the switch into compliance, and the post argues only the remaining, voluntary part on other grounds.
Shareholder welfare as the surviving ground
Following Hart and Zingales, the voluntary switch is defended as serving what shareholders value beyond returns, which holds only if the shareholders are actually consulted.
The cost named without relabeling
Lost margin on every case is stated as a cost, and the post declines to call it a strategic investment without evidence that the spending will come back.
A reply testing shared value
Answering a classmate who invoked shared value, the post asks which tension the concept would resolve here, drawing on Crane and colleagues' critique of it.
Where marks go in DBA-835 Topic 5
Credit drains fastest from posts asserting that the switch will pay off through brand loyalty, which answers a question about divergence by denying that any exists. The prompt is about a real parting of profit and sustainability, and a post that finds them aligned after all has declined it. Dismissing Friedman as outdated, instead of engaging his consent argument, leaves the strongest objection standing. Papers that treat state recycled content rules as voluntary sustainability, or voluntary switching as compliance, confuse two different reasons to act. Citing Porter and Kramer as though shared value settles every conflict ignores the critique that the concept tends to assume tensions away. A reply that echoes a classmate's optimism without asking who pays adds little to a discussion about costs.
Get a DBA-835 Topic 5 example written to your instructions
Send the DBA-835 Topic 5 discussion question as your classroom shows it, with the rubric and any readings attached. We write a custom example to them, with the divergence conceded, the shareholder objection stated fairly, compelled and voluntary action separated, the cost named and a peer reply included, in 24 to 48 hours. Your first one is free.
DBA-835 Topic 5 questions, answered
What did Friedman argue about social responsibility?
In his 1970 essay, Milton Friedman argued that executives work for the owners, whose wish is usually to make as much money as possible while obeying the law and ethical custom, and that executives who spend company money on social goals are in effect taxing shareholders, customers or employees without their consent. The example treats the consent point as the strongest part of the argument and answers it rather than dismissing it.
What is shared value, and why is it criticized?
Porter and Kramer proposed that firms can create economic value by addressing social problems, so that profit and social benefit rise together. Crane and colleagues argued that the idea is attractive but tends to assume away cases where the two conflict, and says little about compliance with existing rules. The example accepts that shared value exists in some decisions and denies that it describes this one.
Should a company absorb sustainability costs its customers will not pay?
No verdict for a real firm is possible here. The example argues that such spending needs a stated ground, such as regulation, shareholders' expressed preferences or a risk the firm reasonably expects, and that its cost should be named rather than relabeled. The bottler exists only for this DBA-835 exercise, and the post offers no investment, legal or business advice.